Me109G-10 Dual Production Plates

[Rasmussen]

Originally Posted by harrison987

Hi Rasmussen,

Rita was actually an Erla-built G-10 built on an older G-14/AS airframe.

She had the 605D and taller tail wheel wheel which only specific to the G-10 and K. She also, had the larger oil tank and different cowling than the regular G-14/AS...but also retained the smaller mail wheel tires...

It was a very unique airframe, probably as she was one of the earliest G-10's built.

There is some speculation and disagreement over "Rita" being a G-14/AS or G-10...however once you have the 605D and tall tail, you pretty much conclude she was a G-10, as those were features that were only slated for the G-10/K.

G-14/AS and G-10 production were almost simultaneous during the transition period, so being an early G-10, she had a lot of G-14/AS features from the older airframe she was built from...

So...

As she was a built as a G-10, she has the two data tags



Mike

Hello Mike,

many thanks for your explanations but ... I have to disagree - careful.

If we believe the words from Richard Goyat the picture was taken in October 1944. At this time the produced G-10 were in Leipzig and not by fighting units (maybe with exeption of 1 or 2 machines).

Interesting would be your source of the DB 605D and the taller tail wheel because if I look on the picture my impression is an normal tail wheel. And what are the differences between the cowlings you found (maybe this was an specific of different producers and had nothing to do with the version?) ?

The larger oil tank (because of the hatch) isn't an mark of DB 605D because some (or many?) G-14's built by Erla used this hatch too (with an DB 605A).

And ... the camouflage is the typical camouflage used on G-6/G-14's which I didn't found on G-10's to this time.

But independent from the discussion to "Rita" have a look on Prien/Stemmer "Messerschmitt Bf 109 im Einsatz bei der II./Jagdgeschwader 3", p. 383. There is an picture of Erla-built G-14 (with the MG 131 bulges) with the "Änderungsstufe" plate under the bulge. the same you can find on Prien/Rodeike/Stemmern "Messerschmitt Bf 109 im Einsatz bei der III. und IV./ Jagdgeschwader 27", p.441 ... again an Erla-built G-14 with the double plate under the MG 131 bulge. So the double plate wasn't used alone by G-10's. Excuse me .

Best wishes
Rasmussen

[harrison987]

Hi!

I was not using the location of the oil hatch to determine 605D .

The W.Nr.490642 confirms it was a G-10..also, the 490000 thru 491000 all had the tall tail wheel.


"Uffz.Thomas Tsutscher, JG300, Lost Jan. 14.45 Rote 2 "Rita". According to the Werk nr is an Erla-built G-10, however she appears to have a mix of features from a Regensburg-built G-6A/S, G-14A/S or G-10 along with some Erla parts. No undercowl bulges, had bigger oil tank (56l. ) and slightly different cowl (110-type), typical for Erla production. What is really interesting, is that plane had older fuselage, coming from earlier G-14 or G-6/AS made by Erla (regarding it's camouflage). Also had the DB 605D connected to this older airframe and fuselage fairings were untypical for Erla G-10's. What else is interesting, that aircraft had smaller wheels (660x160), fuselage was camouflaged in 74/75 greys and the rumpfband was "oxidrot" red brown. The taller tail wheel was also fitted.

It's pilot was Eberhard Gzik but the plane was lost on 14.01.1945 by Fw. Tschuscher while intercepting USAAF bombers

Unfortunatly, I do not have those books to reference, however of all G-14 photos I have seen, none have the dual plates. There was a transition stage from G-14 to G-10, and as they were being built at the same time, I suspect that LATE G-14's with this dual plate (as you saw in photos) were due to the transition (?), and probably very late production...so a G-10 feature carried into the G-14 (?). See if there are werk numbers for those photos...if they are, I suspect in the 780000 block...?

I have not seen any Me109K with the dual plates, so it seems only the G-10 was to have it, and possibly some late G-14's during this time.

But that is just a guess...

[Rasmussen]

Hello Mike,

when the W.Nr. was your source then you have an great problem .

Regarding the Gzik thread he left the JG 300 in the beginning of November 1944 ... at this time the W.Nr. 490 642 wasn't produced. This a/c left the Leipzig factory an month later ... that means the machine used by Gzik in October 1944 couldn't be the W.Nr. 490 642 (and the photo show another machine then the mentioned "Rita" lost on January 14, 1945). Have a look in the Lorant/ Goyat chronicle and you find more then one "Rita".

Best wishes
Rasmussen

[harrison987]

Hi Rasmussen,

The Dual plate as far as I know was slated for the G-10 only. It is not common to find a G-14 2nd plate, however as you pointed out you have found some photos of this 2nd plate. The LATE G-14 was made at the same time as the G-10, I suspect the G-14's that did have them, mearly had them to match the new standards of the G-10. Meaning it was not a standard implimentation as it was on most G-10's.

There are only 2 or 3 photos of "Rita", and the G-14 is not my main knowledge.

I know there was a debate about the W.Nr., loss date, etc...however it is going way off topic to the original posting and I want to stay away from the G-14 in this thread.

[veltro]

If I may add something, in case the "Rita" which has been quoted so far is the same appearing on top of page 157 of the Prien-Rodeike book "Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G & K series" (an absolute must and a classic, but still incorporating some errors...), the W.Nr. printed may be mis-typed, and it could be "460 642", since it is a clear example of one of the "early" G-14/AS built by Erla (the main production of this version took place in Regensburg and those had the ubiquitous "chin bulges" due to the use - for availability reasons only - of the K-4 lower cowl...much to the "amusement" of the researchers).

The "Rita" shown in the photo has two characteristics that, put together identify it quite clearly as an "early" G-14/AS: the obvious lack of "chin bulges" and the "quarter moon" bulged panel ahead of the cockpit (whose curve can clearly be seen behind the legs of one of the man sitting in front of the windscreen).

The G-10s built by Erla (once erroneously identified as "G-10/AS" because their lack of chin bulges was erroneously attributed to the presence of a DB 605 AS... the proof of the new, entirely redesigned upper and lower cowl was in 1992 still to come...) were unmistakenly identifield also by the rectangular panel on the port side of the fuselage, replacing the curved one.

The presence on the same plane of the normal lower cowl and of the curved panel makes the Red 2 "Rita" definitely an Erla-built G-14/AS, IMHO.

HTH

[Rasmussen]

Originally Posted by harrison987

The Dual plate as far as I know was slated for the G-10 only. It is not common to find a G-14 2nd plate, however as you pointed out you have found some photos of this 2nd plate.
...
Meaning it was not a standard implimentation as it was on most G-10's.

That's my point --- I don't believe there is an special connection between the G-10's and the Dual plate.
Why? You can find this plates on early G-14's (the JG 27 machine was flown before the G-10 production was going on), on G-14/AS's, on G-10's from Diana and not on G-10's from Erla (regarding to the me known pics). Of course the plate had to do with technical changes but IMHO not especially with G-10.

Best wishes
Rasmussen

[Franek Grabowski]

Is not it mentioned in the Yellow 10 booklet, that some Focke Wulfs had twin ID plates as well?

[harrison987]

Hi Fernanado and Rasmussen!

From what I have always understood, the very early G-10's had the DB605AS, not the 605D.

Went back to Prien-Rodeike's book (forgot it was in there), and clearly it has the 605AS.

G-10's made by Erla began in Sept. 1944. As they were using EXISTING G-14/AS airframes, it is probable that the early G-10 had the quarter moon panel bulge as the AS did (and not the re-designed straight panel).

I have not seen any documentation or rerearch that dis-proves the early G-10's as having the 605AS. From what I understand the 490000 and 491000 production blocks (1400 aircraft) had the AS. When it comes to production, it would take some time to impliment changes. The square panel was designed with the 605D in mind...and it is very liekly many of the early G-10's carried the usual 605AS curved bulge (as opposed to the square one later implimented).

If you think in terms of production, the G-14/AS airframes were already built...already with curved AS engine bulges. The square panel was re-designed for the 605D. If they were installing an AS on a G-10, they would have no need to install the square panel. Simply add the 605AS and off you go! It would be a waste of production time and costs to remove curved panels from already-build G-14/AS airframes to install a square panel...especially if it made no difference with the 605AS engine installation. Of course, even if they were installing a 605D, it would have made no difference either.

The problem is the dates and the werk number...things written down/recorded wrong, etc. W.Nr.490642 would not make too much sense either...I think that would have been aircraft 1400, and it would have been impossible for ERLA to build 1400 aircraft in 6 weeks (apparantly when the photo was taken - October?).

Do we know 100% when the pic was taken? Do we know 100% on the werk number?

Those are the questions that need to be answered...as an early G-10 could easily have all the features that "Rita" exhibits.

It is a very intersting subject...new information always shows up...theories dis-proven or proven.

But...I would really like to stick with the original thread topic as we are all getting farther from the reason I posted this topic - The reason for the 2nd plate on the G-10 (and I guess now the G-14, too)...

[veltro]

Originally Posted by harrison987

From what I have always understood, the very early G-10's had the DB605AS, not the 605D.

Went back to Prien-Rodeike's book (forgot it was in there), and clearly it has the 605AS.

Please, feel free to stick back to your twin-ID plate issue, but if your info on the Erla G-10 production is that you evidence above, then you are simply wrong and are using outdated info which (my own terrible fault, but at least I admit it...) I contributed to spread back in the late '80s/early '90s in my works.

It simply wasn't so and I have no troubles saying that (only God - for those believing in him - cannot be wrong). Study the work of Jean-Claude Mermet and documentary evidence (Rasmussen is studying Erla production from original material and document from several years and can be much more exhaustive than me), then discuss about G-14/As and G-10s produced by Erla, please.

Documentary evidence that Rasmussen found proves that only about fifty G-10s produced by Erla were equipped with the DB 605 AS due to an interruption of the supply of engines, and that even didn't happen at the start of production. That three of those were among the Italian-manned Bf 109s of ANR found abandoned in Orio al Serio airfield, contributed to spread (at least to me and then) the wrong assumption that the G-10/AS did exist. It simply wasn't so. I do reckon it and corrected my assumptions once that was proved wrong.

I have no agenda to determine what's right and what's wrong, only that I prefer to learn from data and documentation instead that from the reputation of authors. I know they also can be wrong...had it not been so, we would still stick to the old statements of the great William Green, that simply didn't knew a clue about the late-series Bf 109 and also wrote that the Bf 109 K-4 had two MG 151/15 on the cowling...

Sorry to be long and tedious, I promise to go back in my small corner for a while...

[Angantyr]

Hi!

My interest of WWII aeronautics started in the sixties, and by that time Profile publications were the state of the art. Nowadays much of its value (especially that covering of late-war Luftwaffe aircraft) is mostly the photograps, my own copy of Nowarras bf 109 book contains a mass of corrections. But by that time preumably much of the material was´nt available like it is today.

Thanks for your input!

Angantyr